ILNews

Court rules on med mal statute of limitations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed and remanded to Lake Circuit Court a medical malpractice case, holding that it is unconstitutional to apply the state statute's "occurrence-based" nature to the man suing a surgeon.

In Victor Herron v. Anthony A. Anigbo, M.D. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05230712jsk.pdf , No. 45A03-0608-CV-378, the three-judge panel ruled the trial court erred in concluding that Herron's discovery date allowed for sufficient knowledge to discover the malpractice.

The suit stems from Herron's fall outside his home and his admittance to a Merrillville hospital in March 2002. He underwent surgical procedures by Dr. Anigbo and was discharged three weeks later to another facility, though he continued on a ventilator for nine months. In June 2003, Herron went to another doctor to determine if he was fit to be released to a rehabilitation facility; the doctor determined he wasn't. Another doctor advised Herron in November 2003 that Dr. Anigbo's negligent follow-up care had caused the deterioration.

The trial court determined the discovery date was in June of 2003 rather than November.

In determining if Herron had sufficient opportunity to bring his claim before the March 2004 statute of limitations expiration, the court wrote, "We conclude that he did not. It was not until the two-year anniversary of the injury that (another doctor) reported Herron was recovering well and that no new problems had manifested."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT